My viewpoint on Conservative versus Liberal Catholic: The faithful v the fake

[Moonbug]

You are piecemealing a whole lot of stories together as though the sum total of your insinuations are equivalent to the clear Catholic moral teaching. Why is that?

YOU HAVEN’T READ MY POST CAREFULLY.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

YOU HAVEN’T READ MY POST CAREFULLY.

If Joe’s assessment of your posting is incorrect, what is the point of your posting? Usually when people have a point to make, they present it before or after the supporting evidence. Your posting just…ends.

 

[Moonbug]

If Joe’s assessment of your posting is incorrect, what is the point of your posting? Usually when people have a point to make, they present it before or after the supporting evidence. Your posting just…ends.

After expounding on an absurd incident of a bishop enforcing this “debatable” rule and excommunicating the mother and the doctor, and then going into the history of how this state of affairs in the Church is now out of control, and how it was correctly addressed in the past by the birth control commission, but totally rejected on the subjective personal opinion of one Pope, I concluded it was a damning incitement in itself that would be obvious to any rational person. I guess I was wrong.

If you consider any of this not factual, then you can check it out for yourself. I personally think each person who reads my post, if he is intellectually honest, should see the truth in what I wrote.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

After expounding on an absurd incident of a bishop enforcing this “debatable” rule and excommunicating the mother and the doctor, and then going into the history of how this state of affairs in the Church is now out of control, and how it was correctly addressed in the past by the birth control commission, but totally rejected on the subjective personal opinion of one Pope, I concluded it was a damning incitement in itself that would be obvious to any rational person. I guess I was wrong.

If you consider any of this not factual, then you can check it out for yourself. I personally think each person who reads my post, if he is intellectually honest, should see the truth in what I wrote.

If you want to convince anybody of anything rationally you have to start with a common set of postulates that the other person holds to be true, and show how these assumptions lead to your conclusions. What common starting point are you using?

 

[adrift]

In 2009, a 9 year old Brazilian girl became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather. There was evidence he had repeatedly raped her since she was 6 years old. (Google the story) The doctors found on examination that she was 15 weeks pregnant and was carrying twins. Weighing only 80 pounds, the doctors determined that, due to her age, her undeveloped uterus could not carry one child, much less two. The doctors decided that , for the health of the girl, the pregnancy must be terminated. The archbishop refused to consider it, saying if it was carried out the mother and the doctor would be excommunicated. They preceded with the abortion and were excommunicated. The stepfather rapist was not excommunicated, however.

Those who support abortion often point to a hard rendering situation. Somehow you try to justify the abortion, the death of two people as being justified because the rapist wasn’t excommunicated. You do not understand the purpose of excommunication.

Then we had that debacle in Arizona where a nun trained in medical ethics and serving in that position for over 40 years in Catholic hospitals agreed with the doctors and staff at her hospital a woman with three small children should have her pregnancy terminated in order to save her life. The abortion was performed and the archbishop excommunicated the nun and all the doctors and staff involved.

The nun could not have learned much ethics. Ethics would not allow for the murder of innocents.

EXODUS: 21, 22-24. A miscarriage from a hostile blow is not considered murder.

As this miscarriage was unintentional it wasn’t murder. The death was punished.

Saint Thomas Aquinas barred the baptism of any unborn fetus. Baptism could not take place until the actual birth of the child.

Your point is? Until the child is born there is no way of baptizing. It is true even today.

He agreed with Aristotle who said are there three stages to the development of a fetus, Organic, Animal, and Human.

So he had not idea about the development of humans. What he believed had no bearing on the teachings of the Church which have always maintained that abortion is intrinsically evil.

There is no nervous system in the fetus until five or six weeks after conception. The first heart beat and the first electrical activity in the brain also occur about this same time.

a nervous system or the heart beat isn’t what makes a human being. Incidentally this is before most women know they are pregnant.

Saint Irenaeus, who had studied under Saint Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, who in turn had studied under the Apostle John, taught the soul, being pure spirit, had no physical qualities, but it did have a certain corporal character of the soul. He represents it as possessing the form of its body, as water contains the form of its containing vessel. He intimated the soul was not placed in the fetus until it had formed the shape of a human being. Once the soul took this human shape it kept it for eternity. Saint Irenaeus, along with Saint Augustine, were the first two proclaimed “Doctors of the Church.”

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NRSV)

They, no matter if they are doctors or not, do not determine Catholic belief. They did not have the knowledge we have today. They had the mistaken belief that there was no life. We know this to be erroneous. We know that without life there can be no growth. There cannot be life without the soul.

Pope John XXIII set up a Birth Control commission in 1962 in preparation for the Vatican II Council that would study the issue. The commission submitted its report to Pope Paul VI who have replaced John XXIII. The issue was withdrawn from debate by Paul VI who didn’t wanted it debated by all the bishops. The vote of the commission was 51 to 4 for lifting the Church’s birth control ban. The commission firmly stated that the decision to use birth control should be left up to couples. “The Catholic prohibition should simply be lifted.”

Pope Paul VI, not satisfied, ordered them to reconsider, but in order to stack the deck, he increased the size of the commission from 55 to 72. After completely reviewing the results, the expanded commission still voted to lift the prohibition on birth control by a vote of 66 to 6. The Pope buried the report and refused to let it be printed. But the final report was leaked and published by “The National Catholic Reporter” and other publications in 1966.

All this proves is the Church doesn’t vote on morals. It shows how the Holy Spirit is with the Church.

Pope Paul VI, going against his Birth Control Commission, issued HUMANAE VITAE in July of 1968. HUMANAE VITAE was roundly rejected by the Church. the reception was so bad that Pope Paul VI never wrote another encyclical.

Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the traditional teachings despite the ill advised Commission recommendation. The Commission after all was only convened to advise the Pope. Perhaps their very reasoning showed the Pope how bad it was John Paul II later reaffirmed and expanded upon Humanae Vitae with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and, Pope Benedict XVI issued in 2005 a short version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which also repeat the teachings of the Church on this matter.

 

[Moonbug]

If you want to convince anybody of anything rationally you have to start with a common set of postulates that the other person holds to be true, and show how these assumptions lead to your conclusions. What common starting point are you using?

I am not involved in a college debating class. I don’t know where you got that idea. I posted what I know about the birth control issue. I really don’t care if you believe me or not. the facts speak for themselves. You are obviously interested in prolonging an argument. I am not.

 

[Moonbug]

Those who support abortion often point to a hard rendering situation. Somehow you try to justify the abortion, the death of two people as being justified because the rapist wasn’t excommunicated. You do not understand the purpose of excommunication.

It was a real, life event that happened in 2009. Your conclusion that I try to justify the abortion because the rapist wasn’t excommunicated. Your conclusion is laughable. It really brings a smile to my face. That was a separate paragraph at story end denoting a bit of irony by the Brazilian newspaper. You didn’t see that?

The nun could not have learned much ethics. Ethics would not allow for the murder of innocents.

She was a good and respected nun in her order with a lifetime career of working in Church ethics. How much did the bishop know about ethics?

As this miscarriage was unintentional it wasn’t murder. The death was punished.
I assume you mean by the death being punished, you mean the miscarriage? You better go back and read that again.

Your point is? Until the child is born there is no way of baptizing. It is true even today.

The point here is that Aquinas prohibited the baptism of a still born fetus. Some priest believe they should do that. Aquinas said it was wrong.

So he had not idea about the development of humans. What he believed had no bearing on the teachings of the Church which have always maintained that abortion is intrinsically evil.

Tomas Aquinas is considered the greatest theologian the Church has ever produced. He was declared a Doctor of the Church. I rest my case.

a nervous system or the heart beat isn’t what makes a human being. Incidentally this is before most women know they are pregnant.

When a woman misses her period she knows.

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NRSV)

They, no matter if they are doctors or not, do not determine Catholic belief. They did not have the knowledge we have today. They had the mistaken belief that there was no life. We know this to be erroneous. We know that without life there can be no growth. There cannot be life without the soul.
\

Which is it going to be? Either you accept that Church teaching is divine and unchangeable or you accept that with scientific and historical advances in our knowledge, that some Church teachings are subject to alteration or even change. Now, which is it going to be?

All this proves is the Church doesn’t vote on morals. It shows how the Holy Spirit is with the Church.

Did it ever occur to you that such an action is actually through the efforts of the Holy Spirit?

Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the traditional teachings despite the ill advised Commission recommendation. The Commission after all was only convened to advise the Pope. Perhaps their very reasoning showed the Pope how bad it was John Paul II later reaffirmed and expanded upon Humanae Vitae with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and, Pope Benedict XVI issued in 2005 a short version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which also repeat the teachings of the Church on this matter.

\

What they tried to do was shore up a very bad encyclical. The Birth Control Commission was composed of the most distinguished churchmen, scientists, teachers, and laymen in the Church. The reason Pope Paul VI went with this decision was that he didn’t want to correct a previous sitting pope’s decision. He didn’t want to bring embarrassment to the Church by showing a previous pope had been wrong. What I’m showing you is that there is solid ground for birth control in the Church. Pope Francis may well address this issue soon.

 

[Moonbug]

Those who support abortion often point to a hard rendering situation. Somehow you try to justify the abortion, the death of two people as being justified because the rapist wasn’t excommunicated. You do not understand the purpose of excommunication.

The nun could not have learned much ethics. Ethics would not allow for the murder of innocents.

As this miscarriage was unintentional it wasn’t murder. The death was punished.

Your point is? Until the child is born there is no way of baptizing. It is true even today.

So he had not idea about the development of humans. What he believed had no bearing on the teachings of the Church which have always maintained that abortion is intrinsically evil.

a nervous system or the heart beat isn’t what makes a human being. Incidentally this is before most women know they are pregnant.

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NRSV)

They, no matter if they are doctors or not, do not determine Catholic belief. They did not have the knowledge we have today. They had the mistaken belief that there was no life. We know this to be erroneous. We know that without life there can be no growth. There cannot be life without the soul.

All this proves is the Church doesn’t vote on morals. It shows how the Holy Spirit is with the Church.

Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the traditional teachings despite the ill advised Commission recommendation. The Commission after all was only convened to advise the Pope. Perhaps their very reasoning showed the Pope how bad it was John Paul II later reaffirmed and expanded upon Humanae Vitae with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and, Pope Benedict XVI issued in 2005 a short version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which also repeat the teachings of the Church on this matter.

 

[Rete]

Do you actually believe that Humanae Vitae is false? Because, if so, that would provide a good example of the difference between good orthodox Catholics and heterodoxy/heresy. An orthodox Catholic will not dispute it. To do so would be to deny the fact that the Church is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. To deny that protection is to believe our Lord lied when He said it would be so.

We already endured a Protestant revolt once. I doubt you doing it again would have much impact. If you want something different from the truth, then leave. We orthodox Catholics have no other place but the Church. The Church is the body of Christ and Christ is the truth.

 

[adrift]

\

What they tried to do was shore up a very bad encyclical. The Birth Control Commission was composed of the most distinguished churchmen, scientists, teachers, and laymen in the Church. The reason Pope Paul VI went with this decision was that he didn’t want to correct a previous sitting pope’s decision. He didn’t want to bring embarrassment to the Church by showing a previous pope had been wrong. What I’m showing you is that there is solid ground for approived birth control in the Church. Pope Francis may well address this issue soon.

The reason is huh This so called reason is your opinion not based on fact. What has been bad is those who believe that they are pope. Artificial birth control has contributed to the culture of death mind set. It doesn’t matter how distinguished someone is from a worldly point of view what matters is what God says. God left His Church and He speaks through His Church which He guides. You are using the fallacy of appealing to authority.
Your statement “they” refers to who? The encyclical was hardly bad but it was brilliant and ahead of its time, as the Holy Spirit always is. I wonder if you have ever read it? Your comments indicate ignorance or hardness of heart.

 

[Moonbug]

The reason is huh This so called reason is your opinion not based on fact. What has been bad is those who believe that they are pope. Artificial birth control has contributed to the culture of death mind set. It doesn’t matter how distinguished someone is from a worldly point of view what matters is what God says. God left His Church and He speaks through His Church which He guides. You are using the fallacy of appealing to authority.
Your statement “they” refers to who? The encyclical was hardly bad but it was brilliant and ahead of its time, as the Holy Spirit always is. I wonder if you have ever read it? Your comments indicate ignorance or hardness of heart.

The reason:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-birth-control-commission-papers-reveal-vaticans-hand

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The reason:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-birth-control-commission-papers-reveal-vaticans-hand

The article you cited was labelled “Analysis” (I.e. Opinion) and was written by a retired attorney living on Long Island - hardly an authority whose opinion we should trust.

 

[adrift]

The article you cited was labelled “Analysis” (I.e. Opinion) and was written by a retired attorney living on Long Island - hardly an authority whose opinion we should trust.

Exactly! As we now know the pill is an abortifacient. If the Pope had approved it he would have been approving untold deaths. The Pope was wise indeed of course he had the Holy Spirit to guide him.

 

[Moonbug]

The article you cited was labelled “Analysis” (I.e. Opinion) and was written by a retired attorney living on Long Island - hardly an authority whose opinion we should trust.

Analysis of facts! Give some evidence that the facts are not valid?

 

[Moonbug]

Exactly! As we now know the pill is an abortifacient. If the Pope had approved it he would have been approving untold deaths. The Pope was wise indeed of course he had the Holy Spirit to guide him.

the “Morning after” pill only prevents the egg from being embedded in the wall of the uterus. It cannot remove it once it is embedded. The fertilized egg is not a human being. It is merely a mass of biological tissue. No human soul is present. Incidentally, the pill was invented by a Catholic doctor.

This is a dead end street. I’ve posted evidence to prove my point. You have posted nothing. Your replies have been void of all data. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink!” :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The fertilized egg is not a human being. It is merely a mass of biological tissue. No human soul is present.

You state something as fact when it is just your opinion, and an opinion that is directly opposed to the beliefs of the faith that you claim as yours. Just out of curiosity, at what point in the development of this “mass of biological tissue” do you believe it becomes a human being, deserving of all the respect and protection God requires for other human beings?

 

[adrift]

the “Morning after” pill only prevents the egg from being embedded in the wall of the uterus. It cannot remove it once it is embedded. The fertilized egg is not a human being. It is merely a mass of biological tissue. No human soul is present. Incidentally, the pill was invented by a Catholic doctor.

This is a dead end street. I’ve posted evidence to prove my point. You have posted nothing. Your replies have been void of all data. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink!” :banghead::banghead::banghead:

You have only posted opinion that is opposed to the Catholic Church.

What absolute nonsense.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

A fertilizes egg isn’t a frog but the begining of a human life. Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body.

 

[Moonbug]

You have only posted opinion that is opposed to the Catholic Church.

What absolute nonsense.

A fertilizes egg isn’t a frog but the begining of a human life. Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body.

You are equivocating, here. Is a fertilized egg a human being? Yes or No! “Beginning of a human being” won’t cut it. Does a fertilized egg have a soul?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are equivocating, here. Is a fertilized egg a human being? Yes or No! “Beginning of a human being” won’t cut it. Does a fertilized egg have a soul?

No, he’s not equivocating. Nor is the Church. A fertilized egg is a human being.

 

[Joe_5859]

After expounding on an absurd incident of a bishop enforcing this “debatable” rule and excommunicating the mother and the doctor, and then going into the history of how this state of affairs in the Church is now out of control, and how it was correctly addressed in the past by the birth control commission, but totally rejected on the subjective personal opinion of one Pope, I concluded it was a damning incitement in itself that would be obvious to any rational person. I guess I was wrong.

If you consider any of this not factual, then you can check it out for yourself. I personally think each person who reads my post, if he is intellectually honest, should see the truth in what I wrote.

I do not understand why you want to infuse this commission with some sort of official, binding authority, but then you dismiss the actual Church authority as “the subjective personal opinion of one Pope.” Such emotive language with regards to the pope begs the question. Indeed, this argument only works if we view Church teaching as a numbers game where the “opinion-of-one-commission-of-many-people” is greater than the “opinion-of-one-pope.” Catholic teaching has never been determined by majority vote. And it’s not likely to start anytime soon.

Paul VI sought advice. People advised. But then he – being the one with the actual authority on the matter – spoke the truth. I have always viewed that historical happening as evidence of how the Holy Spirit protects the pope from teaching error even when the world has gone mad around him.